Author Topic: 1966 289 c4 vacuum line/power brake booster line  (Read 2457 times)

Offline socalgt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
1966 289 c4 vacuum line/power brake booster line
« on: July 01, 2018, 04:49:27 AM »
I found a picture in a post showing how both the vacuum lines for the C4 and the brake booster were installed.   I've never seen a fitting with two threaded ports for the two lines....is this a fitting that was only available on the assembly line?  I haven't found it offered by any vendors.

Thanks....
« Last Edit: July 01, 2018, 05:15:37 AM by socalgt »

Offline jwc66k

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7346
Re: 1966 289 c4 vacuum line/power brake booster line
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2018, 12:44:15 PM »
Does this look familiar? Junk yard stuff.
Jim
I promise to be politically correct in all my posts to keep the BBBB from vociferating.

Offline lancelot66

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
VR/
-Lance

SJ Build Date: 1/6
'66 Fstbk: 63A M 25 06A 71 1 6
Many Original Options

Offline jwc66k

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7346
Re: 1966 289 c4 vacuum line/power brake booster line
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2018, 03:51:34 PM »
Not a perfect example but I've seen these out on eBay from time to time:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1966-1970-Mustang-289-V-8-Power-Brake-Rear-Intake-Vacuum-Tree-Fitting/142703696662?hash=item2139cd9b16:g:86wAAOSwJRValFyI
Which is what my attachment is, including the elusive part number.
Jim
Upon further review of the scalpers at old-dominion, my price just went up.
I promise to be politically correct in all my posts to keep the BBBB from vociferating.

Offline lancelot66

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
Re: 1966 289 c4 vacuum line/power brake booster line
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2018, 05:40:53 PM »
Yeah, I've never bought from Old Dominion and that's one of the reasons. I guess I shoulda not commented on this one...
VR/
-Lance

SJ Build Date: 1/6
'66 Fstbk: 63A M 25 06A 71 1 6
Many Original Options

Offline markb0729

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 480
  • South Jersey
Re: 1966 289 c4 vacuum line/power brake booster line
« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2018, 01:29:35 AM »
Is this the fitting?  I don't think the are reproduced.  I see them on flee bay from time to time.

65 Dearborn Built Fastback
Approximate Build Date, September 2, 1964
289 4V, C4, PS, PB, No A/C

Offline socalgt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: 1966 289 c4 vacuum line/power brake booster line
« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2018, 08:58:21 AM »
Does this look familiar? Junk yard stuff.
Jim
  After screwing it into the manifold, that fitting would leave only one threaded opening, for either the transmission or the booster....that's the problem.  I have that one now in my manifold. 

Offline socalgt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: 1966 289 c4 vacuum line/power brake booster line
« Reply #7 on: July 02, 2018, 08:59:40 AM »
Is this the fitting?  I don't think the are reproduced.  I see them on flee bay from time to time.
  That one would leave two threaded ports after installing it, so I believe that is the correct fitting for both transmission and booster attaching.

Offline socalgt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: 1966 289 c4 vacuum line/power brake booster line
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2018, 09:29:11 PM »
I found this pic.....I'm going to assume this was a factory installation.

Offline socalgt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: 1966 289 c4 vacuum line/power brake booster line
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2018, 09:28:01 AM »
Is this the fitting?  I don't think the are reproduced.  I see them on flee bay from time to time.
  That one appears to have two threaded ports.....sure looks correct to me

Offline markb0729

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 480
  • South Jersey
Re: 1966 289 c4 vacuum line/power brake booster line
« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2018, 02:28:20 PM »
Yes, the pic I posted is the fitting you need.  It’s for the vacuum modulator on the transmission and power brake vacuum.  I was in Search of this very same fitting a year or two ago.  After a couple of weeks searching, I asked a guy on eBay selling ford engine parts if he had one (I sent him a picture) and as luck would have it he did.  $35 shipped.  Not cheap but I needed it.  I confirmed this was the correct part and n But B Mannel’s Small Block Ford Book. 

IMPORTANT UPDATE: I stand corrected.  The fitting I posted a picture of above is used in 65 with power brakes and automatic trans equipped cars not a 66.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 12:27:06 AM by markb0729 »
65 Dearborn Built Fastback
Approximate Build Date, September 2, 1964
289 4V, C4, PS, PB, No A/C

Offline ChrisV289

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1965
Re: 1966 289 c4 vacuum line/power brake booster line
« Reply #11 on: July 03, 2018, 02:45:58 PM »
I can ask my friend who has a shop if he has any running around...
Chris
1965 Honey Gold Fastback (SJ 10/29/64)
1965 Caspian Blue Fastback (SJ 06/03/65)
2009 V6 Mustang Coupe

Offline 67gtasanjose

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5093
  • "Take the MUSTANG PLEDGE"
Re: 1966 289 c4 vacuum line/power brake booster line
« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2018, 02:54:30 PM »
I have one that you can have if you pay shipping, one small nipple needs soldered though...it is cracked but not snapped off.
Richard Urch

1967 (11/2/66, S.J.) GTA Luxury Coupe, 289-4V w/Thermactor Emissions, C-4, Int./Ext. Decor +many options

2005 (04/05) GT Premium Convertible, Windveil Blue, Parchment Top w/Med. Parchment interior,  Roush Body Appointments

Offline markb0729

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 480
  • South Jersey
Re: 1966 289 c4 vacuum line/power brake booster line
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2018, 12:22:11 AM »
For 66 Bob Mannels book (pages 6-31 and 6-32) states that the vacuum port was either plugged or had one of 2 fittings. 

One would be a 90 degree threaded fitting for cars that had either power brakes only or automatic transmission only and nothing else.  The other possible fitting would be the one jwc66k posted in the picture above.  This fitting would be used with cars equipped with any combination of thermactor emissions (small hose port), vacuum operated accessories (large hose port),  auto trans and/or power steering (threaded port).  In the case of auto trans only equipped mustangs, a section of hard tubing that was shaped around the contours of the air cleaner and narrowing at the top was used for connecting it with a small piece of rubber tubing to the auto trans modulator hard line.  If power steering was installed a different tube as was installed like in the picture I posted (same as 65) with a rubber line connecting from the end of the tube to the power brake booster.  If both auto trans and power steering was installed, Ford always used the tube for the power brake booster and the auto trans modulator picked up its vacuum source from a fitting on the power brake booster.  The Mannel book does not point this out but I'm assuming unused ports were plugged.

Do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of Bob Mannel's Mustang and Ford Small Block V8 book (1962 - 1969).  There were so many details like this and running changes covered in this book, it makes it worth it's weight in gold.  In my opinion it's indispensable for getting things correct.

Mark
« Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 12:30:55 AM by markb0729 »
65 Dearborn Built Fastback
Approximate Build Date, September 2, 1964
289 4V, C4, PS, PB, No A/C

Offline jwc66k

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7346
Re: 1966 289 c4 vacuum line/power brake booster line
« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2018, 01:45:27 AM »
For 66 Bob Mannels book (pages 6-31 and 6-32) states that the vacuum port was either plugged or had one of 2 fittings. 
Also check out pages 2-45, 3-53, 4-54, 5-48, 7-26, 8-41/42 and 9-24 in the Mannell book, especially 2-45 and 5-48.
I also determined that there are some part number discrepancies between the 64-65 Chassis Manual and the January 65 Ford Standard and Utility Parts Catalog with respect to the fittings. Unfortunately, the 67 and on Chassis Manuals show but do not list the applicable part numbers for these fittings so verification is difficult. THhe MPC is no help either. One is definitely incorrect.
Jim
I promise to be politically correct in all my posts to keep the BBBB from vociferating.